Abstract
Computer input capabilities, such as a keyboard or pen, substantially influence basic cognitive abilities, including our ability to produce appropriate ideas, solve problems correctly, and make accurate inferences about information. Compared with keyboard interfaces, computer input tools that can be used to express information involving different representations, modalities, and linguistic codes—or expressively powerful interfaces—can directly stimulate human thought and performance. This chapter summarizes how and why the quality of a computer interface matters. It also discusses implications for establishing a new generation of digital tools that are far better at supporting thinking and reasoning, with special implications for designing more effective educational technologies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Beilock SL, Lyons IM, Mattarella-Micke A, Nusbaum HC, Small SL (2008) Sports experience changes the neural processing of action language. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105(36):13269–13273
Berninger VW, Abbott RD, Augsburger A, Garcia N (2009) Comparison of pen and keyboard transcription modes in children with and without learning disabilities. Learn Disabil Q 32(3):123–141
Dehaene S (2011) The massive impact of literacy on the brain and its consequences for education. Human neuroplasticity and education. Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Vatican city, pp 19–32
Hamzah MD, Tano S, Iwata M, Hashiyama T (2006) Effectiveness of annotating by hand for non-alphabetical languages. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI ’06. ACM, New York, pp 841–850
Hayes JR, Berninger VW (2010) Relationships between idea generation and transcription. Traditions of writing research. Taylor and Francis, New York, p 166
James KH (2010) Sensori-motor experience leads to changes in visual processing in the developing brain. Dev Sci 13(2):279–288
James KH, Engelhardt L (2012) The effects of handwriting experience on functional brain development in pre-literate children. Trends Neurosci Educ 1(1):32–42
Johnson-Laird P (1999) Space to think. In: Bloom P, Peterson M, Nadel L, Garrett M (eds) Language and space. MIT press, Cambridge, pp 437–462
Joshi A, Ganu A, Chand A, Parmar V, Mathur G (2004) Keylekh: a keyboard for text entry in Indic scripts. In: CHI ’04 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, CHI EA ’04. ACM, New York, pp 928–942
Kersey AJ, James KH (2013) Brain activation patterns resulting from learning letter forms through active self-production and passive observation in young children. Front Psychol 4:1
Lewis MP, Simons GF, Fennig CD (2009) Ethnologue: languages of the world, vol 9. SIL International, Dallas. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.com/
Longcamp M, Zerbato-Poudou MT, Velay JL (2005) The influence of writing practice on letter recognition in preschool children: a comparison between handwriting and typing. Acta Psychol 119(1):67–79
Longcamp M, Boucard C, Gilhodes JC, Anton JL, Roth M, Nazarian B, Velay JL (2008) Learning through hand or typewriting influences visual recognition of new graphic shapes: behavioral and functional imaging evidence. J Cogn Neurosci 20(5):802–815
McCandliss BD, Cohen L, Dehaene S (2003) The visual word form area: expertise for reading in the fusiform gyrus. Trends Cogn Sci 7(7):293–299
Mestre JP (2005) Transfer of learning from a modern multidisciplinary perspective. IAP, Charlotte
Nakamura K, Kuo WJ, Pegado F, Cohen L, Tzeng OJ, Dehaene S (2012) Universal brain systems for recognizing word shapes and handwriting gestures during reading. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109(50):20762–20767
Oviatt S (2012) Multimodal interfaces. In: Jacko JA (ed) Human computer interaction handbook: fundamentals, evolving technologies, and emerging applications. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 405–430
Oviatt S (2013) The design of future educational interfaces. Routledge, London
Oviatt SL, Cohen AO (2010) Toward high-performance communications interfaces for science problem solving. J Sci Educ Technol 19(6):515–531
Oviatt S, Cohen PR (2015) The paradigm shift to multimodality in contemporary computer interfaces. Morgan & Claypool, San Rafael
Oviatt S, Arthur A, Cohen J (2006) Quiet interfaces that help students think. In: Proceedings of the 19th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology, UIST ’06. ACM, New York, pp 191–200
Oviatt S, Cohen A, Miller A, Hodge K, Mann A (2012) The impact of interface affordances on human ideation, problem solving, and inferential reasoning. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact 19(3):22:1–22:30
Schwartz DL, Heiser J (2006) Spatial representations and imagery in learning. Citeseer, Princeton
Schwartz DL, Varma S, Martin L (2008) Dynamic transfer and innovation. International handbook of research on conceptual change. Routledge, New York, pp 479–506
The unicode standard, version 6.0
Winne PH, Perry NE (2000) Measuring self-regulated learning. Handbook of self-regulation. Academic, Orlando, pp 531–566
Wynn T (2002) Archaeology and cognitive evolution. Behav Brain Sci 25(03):389–402
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Oviatt, S. (2016). Computer Interfaces Can Stimulate or Undermine Students’ Ability to Think. In: Hammond, T., Valentine, S., Adler, A. (eds) Revolutionizing Education with Digital Ink. Human–Computer Interaction Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31193-7_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31193-7_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-31191-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-31193-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)